Side note infinities are not proven in mathematics at least not to the level of a mathematical proof, they are useful and heavily used but if they are actually or merely a useful cheat is still heavily disputed as it has been since Cantor's day. There are many high level mathematicians who considerate thier greatest aim to remove all use of infinities from math..

Do you actually read this stuff or do you just cherry pick google search results for things you think sound like they support your arguments?

I am not going to go into the difference between potential infinites or actual infinites, finitist and constructivist mathematics, transfinite quantities, or if infinity is syncategorematic but actual or not, but seriously ... Read!

Its like your statement that infinities don't exist in nature which i can only assume you overheard in a discussion of black holes or something. Yes there are physics equations we use to describe the universe that when they produce an infinite result it doesn't seem to make logical sense in the context we understand them, which why it is said nature abhors a naked singularity because it give way for an infinite result, kinda like dividing by zero it doesn't make sense, this does not mean infinities, such as infinite time, space or energy are impossible in nature.

Look ... Its all very fine backing up your point of view with learning, but if thats the only thing you apply your efforts to your never gonna actual learn anything.

Wham! Pow! Kerchung! Now that's what I call a sound lashing. I think even Jesus would approve of that whipping.

Now, to the larger problem: you claim to believe that the golden rule is hard-wired into our genes. I'm asking you, quite directly, to substantiate this with evidence. If you believe it without evidence, you are implicitly suggesting that it IS sometimes acceptable to believe something without any evidence.

The world is evidence that it is possible to be moral without being in the Christian faith. The world is not evidence of a loving God, however.

Like I said, please try harder to actually understand the point. The key words that you seem to have missed are "sometimes acceptable". I never suggested that belief without evidence is the underlying cause of any problems. As should be obvious if you actually read the entire paragraph, the actual point I was making is that if you are willing to accept mere "belief" alone as a legitimate justification for any one thingthen you have no logical justification for withholding acceptance for anything else, as long as they 'believe" it to be true.

Okay then. You've yet to offer a single shred of evidence that killing someone when there's an overpopulated planet is universally wrong. Therefore, you are accepting mere belief as a legitimate justification for making murder a crime, and therefore have no logical justification for withholding acceptance for anything else, as long as others "believe" it to be true. You still have yet to support several of you own beliefs.

Quote:

As for the Golden Rule thing, once again, I'm going to have to call foul. I actually said that I "suspect" that the GR may be hardwired into our genes. I only mentioned it as an interesting hypothesis that may partially explain what is going on inside our heads. I certainly didn't make any specific claims that require justification of any kind to you or anyone else.

Oh, okay. So you suspect something it's true, but you don't believe it. Okay then. That's not very helpful. So, to be clear, do you or do you not believe that morality is hard-wired in our genetics?

Quote:

I do think it is at least plausible and I also mentioned that I had seen some research that suggests that some animals seem to have at least rudimentary moral senses. But, I am not basing any of my actions on this research and I sure as hell never asked you to.So I have to conclude that you are simply trying for an easy "gotcha" in a weak attempt to support your weak position.

I asked you to explain why the morals that you hold are the "right" ones. You came out with the argument about genetics that I guess you only "suspect" is true (but don't "believe" is true) without providing evidence. You made the claim that social groups with less effective moral codes will either die out completely or adopt the rules that do work, again without providing evidence. You're now saying that you don't base ANY of your beliefs on the research that you cited when I asked you to provide justification for your beliefs.

So, very simply: how do you know that your morals are the right ones to hold? What evidence do you have that your beliefs of what is right and what is wrong is the correct interpretation? Why are the morals you don't have less important and why are the ones you do have that others don't more important? It'll help if it's only evidence that you believe.

The world is evidence that it is possible to be moral without being in the Christian faith. The world is not evidence of a loving God, however.

I think you might be missing the context, because you're preaching to the choir. The context is this: ToolGuy3 said that "if you accept the premise that it is sometimes acceptable to believe something without any evidence or justification, then you have opened Pandora's box." He also claimed that he suspected that the golden rule was hard-wired into our genetics. That seems like a belief to me-- one he offered with zero substantiation. Thus, these two statement are contradictory.

The wider point is that morality is nothing more than a system of beliefs. God or no God, you can't "prove" something is moral. You can say it goes against the accepted definition of morality, but then all we are talking about is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. All I want to do is have people examine why they think some things are "right" things to do and others are "wrong". Are these universal constants we can measure?

No, of course not. Morals aren't about science. They're about beliefs. So what makes believing in them without question any better than believing in anything else without question.

You're missing the point. I'm absolutely NOT trying to prove whose morals are right or wrong, better or worse. I don't think you can, but I don't think it matters.

What you can do is examine the end results of any set of rules that is actually implemented and then modify the rules if you don't like the results.

Granted this is far easier said than done. First, you need to agree on the desired results, and then you need to understand how to get there. The thing is, in a democracy, this is exactly what we try to do. Not very well or efficiently, but we try. This is exactly why I keep insisting that tools like logic and reason and evidence are so important. They are the only tools we have that have a successful track record of understanding actual cause and effect, and thus are best at producing desired results.

You keep saying logic and reasoning are important. You've yet to explain why the results you want are more important than the result the Christians want. You argued extensively that if they want you to follow their rules, they needed to provide evidence. Yet you've avoided providing ANY evidence that your set of rules will produce a result that anyone but you and those like you want. So why do you demand evidence from others, but excuse yourself from the same requirement.

Quote:

And while it may appear as if I'm asking for evidence that a certain morality is better, I'm actually asking for evidence that a particular result is better. The distinction may be subtle, but I think it is valid.

It would be more valid if you had said that to begin with, but it's hard for me to see it that way. You said "so every time someone asks me to accept his beliefs or live by his rules, I will demand evidence." You didn't say anything about whether the results were better, you said their BELIEFS. That includes morals. But in reality, proving that an outcome is better is plagued by the same problem. Whom is it good for, and whom is likely to end up on the short end of the stick is an important question. Most people, unsurprisingly, find that the thing that helps them is moral. That doesn't make them right.

Now, it seems you want people to live by your rules. You stated directly that you want rules "that allow me and my family and descendants to live safely and comfortably in the world." Yet you've provided no evidence to support your rules vs other rules. You want results that work for YOU, but you don't accept that these rules may not be better for someone else, and you've yet to demonstrate why your rules should be followed by anyone else. Which is exactly what you accuse believers of doing.

Quote:

But there will never be one final correct or best end result. It will always evolve and change, based solely on what each social group thinks it wants at any given point in time. Because the majority always wins in the end. It may be peaceful at the ballot box or it may be violent revolution, but sooner or later, the scales will balance.

So then it's perfectly acceptable for the Christian majority in Christian countries to do whatever it wants based solely on what it wants at the time? China is the most populous country on earth, should we all live according to their will?

Quote:

Religious morality is always dictated by the dominate social force, not some immutable law.

You quite literally just a few posts ago said that morality was tested by the survival of the fittest. How is religion different from morality if each is dictated by the dominating social force?

Quote:

If it works well it will probably be fairly stable. If not, change is inevitable. You can call it Social Darwinism if you want - I call it reality. I'm not advocating for or against. That is just the way the world works.

You were advocating against it not too many posts ago, demanding that anyone who wanted to issue you rules had to prove their point via reason and logic. Now you're contending that it doesn't matter and the majority opinion is the one that matters. Whether or not you're American, I suggest you read some of the Federalist papers, ideally including #10, and the importance of stopping the tyranny of the majority.

Quote:

My beliefs are no more or less significant than anyone else. The best I can do is work (and vote) towards a world that is good for my family, but most important, to try to understand what is actually best for my family in the long run. Currently, the evidence suggests (at least to me) that the Golden Rule is a good starting point for any social interaction and that a prosperous and fair and productive society is the best possible environment in which to live and I try to persuade others to that effect, but I am always willing to examine new evidence.

I think that's a great idea. And honestly, I suspect if we put our thoughts on individual issues for a better world, we'd probably align a lot more than this debate would suggest. The point I am trying very hard to get to you is that your vision of a better world isn't the same as someone else's. If you are going to demand that they provide evidence that their position is better, it is only fair that you are willing to do the same. And the reality is that most people have never thought about why their morality is the way it is. We should though, all of us, including me-- I'm not trying to pick on you.

If nothing else, this conversation has inspired me to look into my own morality for why I believe things. I think murder is wrong, and I'm sure most people agree. It's just hard to articulate why any reason is universally true. Maybe they used to have debates like this and finally decided that from then on "God said so" was just easier.

We're not talking menial "slaves" here in the modern understanding of that position.

So any controversial word or expression in the Bible can be 'interpretted' in a manner that still makes it look good. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you can never have an argument against religion. Heads it wins, tails you lose.

The kind of misrepresentation resulting from quotation out of context which I challenged here is very obvious to any reasonable person who reads a few verses before and after the verses quoted and makes the slightest effort to understand the cultural context. It has nothing to do with intelligent and honest choice of interpretation. It is to do with sloppy research at best or intentional misleading at worst.

... just out of curiosity, do you think the Bible is 100% error-free? (And I'm not talking about trivial, meaning-neutral errors like grammatical mistakes or the equivalant of typos.)

Any historical document needs to be read based on its form and the kind of information it presents. At the start of Genesis we have a Hebrew poem handed down orally for a couple of thousand years at least before it was written down. What kind of accuracy would an intelligent person expect from this ? If we don't treat it entirely as a contemporaneous closely-observed historical account by those who wrote it into its final form (those some later chapters of Genesis clearly are intimately observed and likely to be very accurate), it still says much about the evolving understanding of the God of the Bible at that time. As a record helping us understand what people believed then it says a great deal which is of interest.

I tend to read the Book of Job as a play script due to its literary form and due to lack of connection between the characters and individuals recorded in the historical records of the other Old Testament books. The Psalms are a hymn book, still sung today in synagogues. Psalm 93 verse 1 used to be taken to mean the Sun orbits around the Earth. I don't think anyone thinks that any more, which also makes using the literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis to argue against biological evolution as a similarly foolish and likely to be historically short-lived interpretive mistake by those who need to catch up more fully with what God tells us by other means when we study nature using scientific approaches.

Jumping ahead to the Gospels and Book of Acts, we've got something most likely to have been written down within the lifetime of eye witnesses to the events described, or where not by those who got to know these direct witnesses very well. That's partly because these accounts include considerable and intimately observed and remembered detail, and partly because of what we know about the authorship and early circulation of these accounts through other historical means. We've got a number of witnesses independently remembering and recording very much the same events and teachings. These are corroborated by Paul's and the other Epistles and by subsequent Church history, together with the history and archaeology of Mediterranean cultures in general.

Is the New Testament error free ? A few minor errors can't be argued away, e.g. whether the field was purchased by Judas before he died there (Acts 1:18), or whether it was purchased for him after he died (Matthew 27:5-10). Both can't be true. It's therefore not my understanding that no other minor errors than this one could exist. But what we can conclude by considering these 2 accounts in comparison with each other is to say that what the 2 versions of the story are in agreement over is that Judas killed himself, and we don't know whether this was before or after a field was also purchased with the blood money and he was buried there.

The fact someone speaking about events witnessed perhaps 30 or 40 years later who remembers a great deal and very accurately makes minor errors over minor points doesn't discredit their honesty and reliability as a historical witness in general when it comes to important events. Such minor errors are indeed to be expected, and the fact the accounts circulated too widely and too quickly to prevent any subsequent centralised editing in order to make them agree more closely, makes them more, and not less credible.

For example, my niece was staying in New York on 9/11 and was an eye witness to the first tower being on fire, when the second of the 2 planes crashed into the other of the 2 towers. If she were to remember the second plane going into the other of the north or south towers 12 years later in a different order compared to the official record, this would not discredit her witness about seeing the result of the first plane having crashed into one of these towers, and seeing directly the second plane flying into the other of the 2 towers. So what I'm interested in when it comes to the New Testament are the core events and narratives which the various witnesses are in substantial agreement over concerning events of subsequently very great cultural significance.

The fact someone speaking about events witnessed perhaps 30 or 40 years later who remembers a great deal and very accurately makes minor errors over minor points doesn't discredit their honesty and reliability as a historical witness in general when it comes to important events. Such minor errors are indeed to be expected, and the fact the accounts circulated too widely and too quickly to prevent any subsequent centralised editing in order to make them agree more closely, makes them more, and not less credible.

So there are indeed errors, and you not only know where every one of those errors lie but also know with absolute certainty which are important and which are not.

The fact someone speaking about events witnessed perhaps 30 or 40 years later who remembers a great deal and very accurately makes minor errors over minor points doesn't discredit their honesty and reliability as a historical witness in general when it comes to important events. Such minor errors are indeed to be expected, and the fact the accounts circulated too widely and too quickly to prevent any subsequent centralised editing in order to make them agree more closely, makes them more, and not less credible.

So there are indeed errors, and you not only know where every one of those errors lie but also know with absolute certainty which are important and which are not.

And you have staked your life on this?

If you read what I said in full, you'll see that I expect other minor and honestly-occurring errors to exist in this record for the reasons the one I pointed out is likely to have occurred, but not on the most crucial matters where the main witnesses are plural and in full agreement. But I think by worrying about what must be considered very minor details, you're really missing the full picture and not seeing the wood for the trees. And as to "staking my life" I only started reading the New Testament seriously and critically as an adult when this collection of writings started significantly confirming an encounter which I had experienced very similarly to the way St Paul described the encounter which changed his life. It was the choice which this opened to me and what followed, confirmed by wisdom of other great Christian writers which gave me a life which had in comparison been a miserable and uncertain existence previously. C.S. Lewis' adult experiences as he describes these were very different from mine, but provided confirmation that it's possible for the most intelligent of people to become Christians , not that I classify mine as anywhere near to the learning, scholarship and capacity for logical argument simply and clearly described as that of C.S.Lewis.

The fact someone speaking about events witnessed perhaps 30 or 40 years later who remembers a great deal and very accurately makes minor errors over minor points doesn't discredit their honesty and reliability as a historical witness in general when it comes to important events. Such minor errors are indeed to be expected, and the fact the accounts circulated too widely and too quickly to prevent any subsequent centralised editing in order to make them agree more closely, makes them more, and not less credible.

So there are indeed errors, and you not only know where every one of those errors lie but also know with absolute certainty which are important and which are not.

And you have staked your life on this?

If you read what I said in full, you'll see that I expect other minor and honestly-occurring errors to exist in this record for the reasons the one I pointed out is likely to have occurred, but not on the most crucial matters where the main witnesses are plural and in full agreement. But I think by worrying about what must be considered very minor details, you're really missing the full picture and not seeing the wood for the trees. And as to "staking my life" I only started reading the New Testament seriously and critically as an adult when this collection of writings started significantly confirming an encounter which I had experienced very similarly to the way St Paul described the encounter which changed his life. It was the choice which this opened to me and what followed, confirmed by wisdom of other great Christian writers which gave me a life which had in comparison been a miserable and uncertain existence previously. C.S. Lewis' adult experiences as he describes these were very different from mine, but provided confirmation that it's possible for the most intelligent of people to become Christians , not that I classify mine as anywhere near to the learning, scholarship and capacity for logical argument simply and clearly described as that of C.S.Lewis.

So ... What i can gather from your above comments is you accept that the bible is literary fiction?

But I think by worrying about what must be considered very minor details, you're really missing the full picture and not seeing the wood for the trees.

Oh, I see the wood and trees just fine. In my forest, the meaning of the word slavery does not vary with opportunistic 'interpretations'. And in my forest, there isn't an all-knowing, all-powerful being who capriciously kills large quantities of innocent people. Why do you choose to ignore those parts?

What I don't understand is why you would embrace that framwork to guide your life, when there are so many other avenues of inquiry available that don't rely on superstition or on such contorted logic to rationalize what has been written.

If you read what I said in full, you'll see that I expect other minor and honestly-occurring errors to exist in this record for the reasons the one I pointed out is likely to have occurred, but not on the most crucial matters where the main witnesses are plural and in full agreement. But I think by worrying about what must be considered very minor details, you're really missing the full picture and not seeing the wood for the trees. And as to "staking my life" I only started reading the New Testament seriously and critically as an adult when this collection of writings started significantly confirming an encounter which I had experienced very similarly to the way St Paul described the encounter which changed his life. It was the choice which this opened to me and what followed, confirmed by wisdom of other great Christian writers which gave me a life which had in comparison been a miserable and uncertain existence previously. C.S. Lewis' adult experiences as he describes these were very different from mine, but provided confirmation that it's possible for the most intelligent of people to become Christians , not that I classify mine as anywhere near to the learning, scholarship and capacity for logical argument simply and clearly described as that of C.S.Lewis.

So ... What i can gather from your above comments is you accept that the bible is literary fiction?[/quote]

Well, if you'll only consider the Bible on the same basis as the fundamentalists, or not at all, all you are really demonstrating is you share the same attitudes as them. Get real. A reputable newspaper has many little mistakes in it, but that doesn't make all the stories in it downright lies. If you get 4 tomorrow, you'll soon be able to figure out what they agree upon.

The world is evidence that it is possible to be moral without being in the Christian faith. The world is not evidence of a loving God, however.

I think you might be missing the context, because you're preaching to the choir. The context is this: ToolGuy3 said that "if you accept the premise that it is sometimes acceptable to believe something without any evidence or justification, then you have opened Pandora's box." He also claimed that he suspected that the golden rule was hard-wired into our genetics. That seems like a belief to me-- one he offered with zero substantiation. Thus, these two statement are contradictory.

The wider point is that morality is nothing more than a system of beliefs. God or no God, you can't "prove" something is moral. You can say it goes against the accepted definition of morality, but then all we are talking about is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. All I want to do is have people examine why they think some things are "right" things to do and others are "wrong". Are these universal constants we can measure?

No, of course not. Morals aren't about science. They're about beliefs. So what makes believing in them without question any better than believing in anything else without question.

The confusion here is you, like many people, seem to be trying to hold two contradictory moral systems simultaneously. It's like the dirty hands problem in moral philosophy classic example of which is there is a bomb on a plane you hold the terrorist who planted the bomb but the only way you can get him to tell you the code to disarm the bomb before it blows up over a populated area killing the 525 passenger and crew and people below is to torture the terrorist's 4 year old child in front if him.For most people the implication here is that no matter what you do you've ended up with dirty hands, either you've tortured an inocent child or you've let hundred of people you could have saved died.

But the problem here is simply that your holding two basic moral views at once

Utilitarianism, the outcome of an action defines weather an action is moral or not the most good for the most people is the goal. Absolutism, action themselves are either moral or immoral based on their inherent nature irregardless of whatever results they might produce.

If its the first option you torture the kid, if its the second you do not.

Moral right and wrong can definitely be proven as long as you clearly define what your moral system is. This is difficult and to be honest people with clearly defined moral codes are scary, I think a fair bit of doubt about what s right is healthy in a human, but yes it is possible to prove moral right or wring as long as you define your terms.

The issues you seem to be having is you are implying that there is some fundamental moral system built into the universe and the at the same time saying it can only be accessed by, or it is in fact, only a system of belief. Its easy to see where confusion might result from this.

It's like the dirty hands problem in moral philosophy classic example of which is there is a bomb on a plane you hold the terrorist who planted the bomb but the only way you can get him to tell you the code to disarm the bomb before it blows up over a populated area killing the 525 passenger and crew and people below is to torture the terrorist's 4 year old child in front if him.

What the hell kind of contrived example is that?

I've heard numerous 'dirty hands' scenarios, but never one that drags an innocent kid into the equation. Besides introducing too many other hypothetical variables, there's no guarantee the terrorist even likes his kid in the first place. And that's the only leverage one has in this example?

If you read what I said in full, you'll see that I expect other minor and honestly-occurring errors to exist in this record for the reasons the one I pointed out is likely to have occurred, but not on the most crucial matters where the main witnesses are plural and in full agreement. But I think by worrying about what must be considered very minor details, you're really missing the full picture and not seeing the wood for the trees. And as to "staking my life" I only started reading the New Testament seriously and critically as an adult when this collection of writings started significantly confirming an encounter which I had experienced very similarly to the way St Paul described the encounter which changed his life. It was the choice which this opened to me and what followed, confirmed by wisdom of other great Christian writers which gave me a life which had in comparison been a miserable and uncertain existence previously. C.S. Lewis' adult experiences as he describes these were very different from mine, but provided confirmation that it's possible for the most intelligent of people to become Christians , not that I classify mine as anywhere near to the learning, scholarship and capacity for logical argument simply and clearly described as that of C.S.Lewis.

So ... What i can gather from your above comments is you accept that the bible is literary fiction?

Well, if you'll only consider the Bible on the same basis as the fundamentalists, or not at all, all you are really demonstrating is you share the same attitudes as them. Get real. A reputable newspaper has many little mistakes in it, but that doesn't make all the stories in it downright lies. If you get 4 tomorrow, you'll soon be able to figure out what they agree upon.[/quote]

A good newspaper will issue retractions when errors are pointed out to it, it contains stories of fact that can be verified by independent sources as well as opinion, advertisements, and works of pure fiction which are all clearly separated and identified. You also seem to suggest comparing different newspapers to see where consensus corrects bias and mistakes, ... Am I to assume that's how you approach the bible? Have you compared it to the Talmud and Qur'an ? As well I guess as the Bhagavad Gita, Adi Granth, Pruvas, Pali Tripitaka, Chuang-tzu, Nectarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, the book of mormon and Dianetics? Discarding those things where the bible as an imperfect keeper of record is so obviously at odds with others? ... I mean you've admitted there the possibility of critical errors, it would be remiss of not to work to correct them.

I have no issue with the Bible as literature, and that's how I have read it. My question is if you accept the bible was written by people with no direct knowledge, that its was done so creatively with poems and stories and fictionalized accounts as well as having been translated and reinterpreted multiple times with florid prose translated into florid prose. If you accept that it is essentially the same as countless other great works of literature that have been passed down thru time such as the Iliad, Beowulf, book of the dead, Mahabharata, Koran, and the like why do you give the bible special status as a guide for your life as opposed to the others?

It's like the dirty hands problem in moral philosophy classic example of which is there is a bomb on a plane you hold the terrorist who planted the bomb but the only way you can get him to tell you the code to disarm the bomb before it blows up over a populated area killing the 525 passenger and crew and people below is to torture the terrorist's 4 year old child in front if him.

What the hell kind of contrived example is that?

I've heard numerous 'dirty hands' scenarios, but never one that drags an innocent kid into the equation. Besides introducing too many other hypothetical variables, there's no guarantee the terrorist even likes his kid in the first place. And that's the only leverage one has in this example?

Sorry that was the actual example presented to us in a paper in (i think i was in second year?) philosophy in university. It was part of the thesis of a student going for her degree that she presented in front of faculty and students during a monthly cross department meeting. I cut into her that her whole premise was faulty and the head of the department started to giggle uncontrollably from the back of the room that I was right, ... So it kinda stuck in my mind.

The assumptions, like that torturing the kid being the only way and such, are merely given to illustrate the dilemma, not as actual facts.

The issues you seem to be having is you are implying that there is some fundamental moral system built into the universe and the at the same time saying it can only be accessed by, or it is in fact, only a system of belief. Its easy to see where confusion might result from this.

No, I'm arguing 100 percent for the interpretation that morals are beliefs. Toolguy3 argued that he suspected it was hard-wired into us, and I asked for substantiation. I think where the confusion is is that toolguy3 said that he would require evidence to listen to somebody else's beliefs. I am now asking him for his own evidence to support his morals. Of course, to have evidence that your morality is right, there would have to be a fundamental moral system to the universe.

What I am trying to eke slowly out of people is that there is NOT a universal right and wrong. There are beliefs. Beliefs that cannot be substantiated scientifically, and are inherited traditions that we learn by interacting with society and gleaning from context. These beliefs largely go unquestioned. So any system of morality, whether or not it invokes a God figure, is inherently nothing more than a set of beliefs that are ingrained into a group. They cannot be "proven" to be "right". They can only be tested against whether your own morals and actions align with the group consensus of how people should act. You mentioned that you can prove "right" and "wrong" once you define those terms. The problem is that people define them differently. Proving your definition of "right" is "right" is inherently a circular bit of logic.

Testing morality against what the group believes is, with no further justification, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. There isn't a universal right and wrong to point to. Thus, to swing full circle, we ALL have beliefs that have precisely zero evidentiary support. So how can one group with beliefs without evidence point at another and say "see, you don't have evidence for your beliefs, therefore you're stupid!" (and I know most people aren't that rude, but the concept is the same).

So my argument is not that there is a universal right and wrong. My argument is that there isn't. That even if you don't believe in God, the odds are quite good that you hold ephemeral beliefs about the nature of the world that cannot in any way be supported by science.

I know I do. I think murder is wrong. I just couldn't prove that to someone who thought otherwise without arguing from authority, tradition, repetition, or popularity, all of which are logical fallacies.

Sorry that was the actual example presented to us in a paper in philosophy in university.

Well, whoever came up with it could have embelished even further, like the terrorist's kid also had epilepsy and held a live, unpinned grenade but also suffered from coulrophobia and had to go to the bathroom which happened to have a clown painting in it...

(This is where having a Magic Eight Ball greatly simplifies the decision-making process.)

You're missing the point. I'm absolutely NOT trying to prove whose morals are right or wrong, better or worse. I don't think you can, but I don't think it matters.

What you can do is examine the end results of any set of rules that is actually implemented and then modify the rules if you don't like the results.

Granted this is far easier said than done. First, you need to agree on the desired results, and then you need to understand how to get there. The thing is, in a democracy, this is exactly what we try to do. Not very well or efficiently, but we try. This is exactly why I keep insisting that tools like logic and reason and evidence are so important. They are the only tools we have that have a successful track record of understanding actual cause and effect, and thus are best at producing desired results.

You keep saying logic and reasoning are important. You've yet to explain why the results you want are more important than the result the Christians want.

.......... snipped for space

I think that a lot of this is an argument on semantics. So let me define what I believe:

Everyone has beliefs.Everyone has reasons for those beliefs.Valid reasons are more useful than imaginary ones.

Valid is defined to mean something that all participants agree is demonstrable in the real world.

Useful is defined to mean any tool or concept that can be reliably used to manipulate or predict events in the real world.

So let me try again to explain what I actually mean with the above context in mind.

I have never asked anyone to prove that their opinions are correct in some ephemeral "higher morality" sense. I have merely asked that they provide evidence that they are demonstrable in the real world. In other words, regardless of whatever claim they are making, they need to prove that they understand the actual cause and the actual effect. At least, if they wish to persuade me.

Because, although I thought it was implied, I should have phrased the statement something along the lines of "if you want me to accept your beliefs or follow your rules willingly, then you need to convince me that your beliefs are justified."

And "God said so" is not adequate justification simply because it is not a reliable predictor of cause and effect.

Science (and the scientific method) have an overall excellent track record of being able to reliably identify underlying causes and predict specific effects. No magical belief system that I've ever heard of has ever been better than random chance.

So, if someone wants me to change my beliefs, then they need to convince me that their beliefs are more effective and useful in the real world.

As I've said previously, without a verifiable external authority, there can be no overall correct or best moral code. We can only have an internal moral code, which can really only be declared to be correct or right in reference to that particular individual.

I never claimed that my personal moral code was any better than anyone else's, nor did I ever claim that any sort of majority rule situation would produce the "best" moral code.

You're the one who keeps conflating "moral code" with social contract. I have merely stated that I believe that the current world we live in is nothing more or less than the end result of a bunch of possibly conflicting individual desires shaped and molded by the inevitable laws of natural selection.

So I and everyone else in the world will continue to live by our own internal moral codes. And I will continue to attempt to use logic and reason to persuade others to change their beliefs and actions in such a way as to make the world better place for me to live.

It just so happens that I believe that if everyone else was better off, then I would be better off too, but that is completely irrelevant. I am sure that there are some people out there who feel that they should be King or Emperor. But the world around us is pretty good evidence that most people prefer a higher degree of personal freedom. And it is also evidence that a sizable percentage feel that peaceful cooperation is a good thing.

And yes, I know that not everyone in the world has a high level of personal freedom or even any freedom at all, but social contracts that don't work well seem to collapse from their own inefficiency sooner or later, e.g. the old Soviet Union and North Korea. China isn't collapsing, but it certainly is changing.

So, in a nutshell, I have no interest at all in "morality" per se. I only care about what actually works in the real world. And while I haven't and don't claim that the current set of social contracts that the world lives by are the absolute best possible ones, overall, many of them are in fact quite useful.

While I maintain that the end result is still the sum total of individual wants and desires, it would appear that many of those wants and desires are quite similar and compatible. I believe that most people recognize that peaceful cooperation is simply more efficient and far better way to live in the world. I hope that people are starting to realize that people are far more alike than they are different, and that most people have similar goals and aspirations.

And, as I have said repeatedly, I strongly believe the tools of logic and evidence are, by far, the best way to understand and live in the world, and especially, the best way to recognize the underlying truths above.

The issues you seem to be having is you are implying that there is some fundamental moral system built into the universe and the at the same time saying it can only be accessed by, or it is in fact, only a system of belief. Its easy to see where confusion might result from this.

No, I'm arguing 100 percent for the interpretation that morals are beliefs. Toolguy3 argued that he suspected it was hard-wired into us, and I asked for substantiation. I think where the confusion is is that toolguy3 said that he would require evidence to listen to somebody else's beliefs. I am now asking him for his own evidence to support his morals. Of course, to have evidence that your morality is right, there would have to be a fundamental moral system to the universe.

What I am trying to eke slowly out of people is that there is NOT a universal right and wrong. There are beliefs. Beliefs that cannot be substantiated scientifically, and are inherited traditions that we learn by interacting with society and gleaning from context. These beliefs largely go unquestioned. So any system of morality, whether or not it invokes a God figure, is inherently nothing more than a set of beliefs that are ingrained into a group. They cannot be "proven" to be "right". They can only be tested against whether your own morals and actions align with the group consensus of how people should act. You mentioned that you can prove "right" and "wrong" once you define those terms. The problem is that people define them differently. Proving your definition of "right" is "right" is inherently a circular bit of logic.

Testing morality against what the group believes is, with no further justification, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. There isn't a universal right and wrong to point to. Thus, to swing full circle, we ALL have beliefs that have precisely zero evidentiary support. So how can one group with beliefs without evidence point at another and say "see, you don't have evidence for your beliefs, therefore you're stupid!" (and I know most people aren't that rude, but the concept is the same).

So my argument is not that there is a universal right and wrong. My argument is that there isn't. That even if you don't believe in God, the odds are quite good that you hold ephemeral beliefs about the nature of the world that cannot in any way be supported by science.

I know I do. I think murder is wrong. I just couldn't prove that to someone who thought otherwise without arguing from authority, tradition, repetition, or popularity, all of which are logical fallacies.

Emphasis mine.

I you have had time to read my most recent post, I think you'll find that we actually agree on quite a bit. But the highlighted part above is just plain wrong.

Suppose Group One believes propositions A, B, C and D. With a little overlap, Group Two believes propositions A, B, E and F. Valid evidence exists to support propositions A, B, C and E. Both D and F are completely unsubstantiated beliefs.

If either group presents A, B, C or E for debate, they have every right to expect the other side to accept the truth of the proposition. In fact, they already agree on two. It doesn't matter in the least if either D or F is seemingly reasonable or completely absurd, the truth of propositions A, B, C and E is completely unaffected. The problem only occurs if one side puts forth D or F and expects the other side to accept it without evidence.

I agree that neither side should call the other stupid, especially since, as you say, they each believe some silly stuff. But truth is truth regardless. The truth or falsity of any unrelated proposition has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Because, although I thought it was implied, I should have phrased the statement something along the lines of "if you want me to accept your beliefs or follow your rules willingly, then you need to convince me that your beliefs are justified."

And "God said so" is not adequate justification simply because it is not a reliable predictor of cause and effect.

Okay, I am alright with this...up until you say this:

Quote:

We can only have an internal moral code, which can really only be declared to be correct or right in reference to that particular individual.

So if a person believes their morals come from God, you ask that they provide you justification for why their beliefs are better. Yet you then go on to state that a person's internal moral code can only be declared correct or right in reference to that particular individual. Well, those two statement don't play well together. Either you accept that a person's moral code can only be judged against themselves (in which case all religious morality is justified if a person believes in that religion), or you believe that you have a right to question the beliefs of others (be they moral or religious).

You have to pick: can you judge the beliefs of others based on your beliefs, or can you not?

Because, although I thought it was implied, I should have phrased the statement something along the lines of "if you want me to accept your beliefs or follow your rules willingly, then you need to convince me that your beliefs are justified."

And "God said so" is not adequate justification simply because it is not a reliable predictor of cause and effect.

Okay, I am alright with this...up until you say this:

Quote:

We can only have an internal moral code, which can really only be declared to be correct or right in reference to that particular individual.

So if a person believes their morals come from God, you ask that they provide you justification for why their beliefs are better. Yet you then go on to state that a person's internal moral code can only be declared correct or right in reference to that particular individual. Well, those two statement don't play well together. Either you accept that a person's moral code can only be judged against themselves (in which case all religious morality is justified if a person believes in that religion), or you believe that you have a right to question the beliefs of others (be they moral or religious).

You have to pick: can you judge the beliefs of others based on your beliefs, or can you not?

The concept of better or worse in the universal sense, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Remember, for practical purposes I'm a utilitarian, and I only care about what's good for me. So "God says so" doesn't do a thing for me. But if you say something like "well I think murder is wrong, so lets get some people together and make a mutual protection pact so that none of us gets murdered", well I can see the value of that. Especially, since I share the belief about not wanting to get murdered myself.

In fact, I probably shouldn't have used the term internal moral code because the word morality has so much baggage associated with it,and we both seem to agree that a universal morality code is a meaningless concept. I think a more accurate description is "rules to live by" or something to that effect.

The point is, I REALLY don't care about anyone else's belief system until it begins to affect me.

Of course, since I do live in a highly complex, interlocking society, other people's belief systems do affect me which is why I spent so much time trying to get them to base their beliefs on logic and evidence.

So my argument is not that there is a universal right and wrong. My argument is that there isn't.

As I tried to explain to you earlier, that's precisely what makes "God said so" more 'dangerous' than "dad said so".

Why? Both are appeals to authority. If you're doing something because your dad you to, and he did it because HIS dad told him to, and his dad did it because HID dad it, too (and so on), you're appealing to tradition, which is every bit as logically fallacious as saying "cause God said so". Lots of people have been raised in racist families, and pick up on it. Are we prepared to argue that racism is less dangerous if it comes from family tradition?

It is irrelevant UNLESS they try to use that supposed source of universal right and wrong to justify their actions.

But that's really tangential to the actions themselves. Why they're taking actions that are harmful to your overall wellbeing should only matter in your assessment of whether you feel those actions are justified. If their only reason is because some authority said so without any additional justification, then they should be resisted, whether that authority is God, their parents, their teacher, their doctor, etc, etc, etc.

Singling out God as the only potential authority to cause negative actions is irrational.

It is irrelevant UNLESS they try to use that supposed source of universal right and wrong to justify their actions.

But that's really tangential to the actions themselves. Why they're taking actions that are harmful to your overall wellbeing should only matter in your assessment of whether you feel those actions are justified. If their only reason is because some authority said so without any additional justification, then they should be resisted, whether that authority is God, their parents, their teacher, their doctor, etc, etc, etc.

Singling out God as the only potential authority to cause negative actions is irrational.

The problem is not God per se, but rather the entire concept of encouraging belief without evidence that is completely irrational.

If you are unwilling to use logic and reason, how can you tell good from bad, truth and falsity, how can you tell if your authority figure is the correct one?

There are literally thousands of gods and tens of thousands of religions to choose from. So if you don't subject them to rational analysis and demand that they provide proof that their claims are true, how can you know that your God or belief system is actually correct?

We know there are many outright conmen and charlatans professing various different religions out there. We know there are a lot of different religions each professing to be the only correct one.

Without logic and evidence, even if it one religion is true, the odds are dramatically against you picking the right one by just guessing.

If you allow anyone to claim that their unquestionable authority figure is always correct without demanding proof thereof, there is no conceivable way that you could prove them wrong, even if the entire rest of the world is convinced that they are.

Because, although I thought it was implied, I should have phrased the statement something along the lines of "if you want me to accept your beliefs or follow your rules willingly, then you need to convince me that your beliefs are justified."

And "God said so" is not adequate justification simply because it is not a reliable predictor of cause and effect.

Okay, I am alright with this...up until you say this:

Quote:

We can only have an internal moral code, which can really only be declared to be correct or right in reference to that particular individual.

So if a person believes their morals come from God, you ask that they provide you justification for why their beliefs are better. Yet you then go on to state that a person's internal moral code can only be declared correct or right in reference to that particular individual. Well, those two statement don't play well together. Either you accept that a person's moral code can only be judged against themselves (in which case all religious morality is justified if a person believes in that religion), or you believe that you have a right to question the beliefs of others (be they moral or religious).

You have to pick: can you judge the beliefs of others based on your beliefs, or can you not?

The concept of better or worse in the universal sense, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Remember, for practical purposes I'm a utilitarian, and I only care about what's good for me. So "God says so" doesn't do a thing for me. But if you say something like "well I think murder is wrong, so lets get some people together and make a mutual protection pact so that none of us gets murdered", well I can see the value of that. Especially, since I share the belief about not wanting to get murdered myself.

In fact, I probably shouldn't have used the term internal moral code because the word morality has so much baggage associated with it,and we both seem to agree that a universal morality code is a meaningless concept. I think a more accurate description is "rules to live by" or something to that effect.

The point is, I REALLY don't care about anyone else's belief system until it begins to affect me.

Of course, since I do live in a highly complex, interlocking society, other people's belief systems do affect me which is why I spent so much time trying to get them to base their beliefs on logic and evidence.

I'm mostly just skimming the comments by this point. But something occurred to me...

All this talk about "beliefs" and "faith" vs. "facts" and "reason"...How about "values" (or is it too late for that -- would it just confuse matters further)?

That they want to, say, ban same sex marriage because some authority told them it was bad versus because they're raging homophobes makes no difference to the fact that they want to do something negative to a lot of people for no gain with no support.

Them pointing to a book saying, "Book says it's bad," should result in a response of "then you shouldn't do it, should you?" and opposition to them trying to make their book apply to all people.

That they want to, say, ban same sex marriage because some authority told them it was bad versus because they're raging homophobes makes no difference to the fact that they want to do something negative to a lot of people for no gain with no support.

Them pointing to a book saying, "Book says it's bad," should result in a response of "then you shouldn't do it, should you?" and opposition to them trying to make their book apply to all people.

Of course it should, but if it is impossible to convince them they are wrong because they believe in the ultimate authority, they will just keep trying, not to mention the fact that you run the risk of one of the true believers deciding it is justified to bomb a clinic or fly a plane into a building.

That they want to, say, ban same sex marriage because some authority told them it was bad versus because they're raging homophobes makes no difference to the fact that they want to do something negative to a lot of people for no gain with no support.

Them pointing to a book saying, "Book says it's bad," should result in a response of "then you shouldn't do it, should you?" and opposition to them trying to make their book apply to all people.

Of course it should, but if it is impossible to convince them they are wrong because they believe in the ultimate authority, they will just keep trying, not to mention the fact that you run the risk of one of the true believers deciding it is justified to bomb a clinic or fly a plane into a building.

And, as we've seen time and time again, when they fail to convince, they often resort to pretending that their motives and justification don't stem from some preferred sacred authority, but rather from legitimate, neutral, objective sources (and even concoct such material, if something suitable can't be misrepresented to support their position). This has been a growing trend.

(There are, occasionally, those that will straight-forwardly say, "I think we should follow this policy (at least in part) because my religion says so -- but here is why everybody else should support this position, too". But that kind of candour and human respect has become a rare thing.)

Them pointing to a book saying, "Book says it's bad," should result in a response of "then you shouldn't do it, should you?" and opposition to them trying to make their book apply to all people.

Did you know that the solution to world peace is to simply get everyone to stop fighting?

I didn't express myself well in that part you quoted.

What I meant is that if someone is using their religious text to try to claim nobody should do a thing, the best response it to tell them that those who believe in the religious text shouldn't do that thing, but the religious text has no bearing on those who don't follow it's teachings.

Them pointing to a book saying, "Book says it's bad," should result in a response of "then you shouldn't do it, should you?" and opposition to them trying to make their book apply to all people.

Did you know that the solution to world peace is to simply get everyone to stop fighting?

I didn't express myself well in that part you quoted.

What I meant is that if someone is using their religious text to try to claim nobody should do a thing, the best response it to tell them that those who believe in the religious text shouldn't do that thing, but the religious text has no bearing on those who don't follow it's teachings.

Uhh ... no, you expressed yourself perfectly clearly the first time and I'm positive that everyone understood it to mean exactly what you said this time.

But what you said (both times) is so completely ludicrous as to be beyond belief.

Them pointing to a book saying, "Book says it's bad," should result in a response of "then you shouldn't do it, should you?" and opposition to them trying to make their book apply to all people.

Did you know that the solution to world peace is to simply get everyone to stop fighting?

I didn't express myself well in that part you quoted.

What I meant is that if someone is using their religious text to try to claim nobody should do a thing, the best response it to tell them that those who believe in the religious text shouldn't do that thing, but the religious text has no bearing on those who don't follow it's teachings.

You do realize that the entire reason atheists like me even bother arguing at all with people who hold religious viewpoints is precisely because what you propose simply doesn't work.